A plea for non-discrimination

I have just been reading Corrin's surprisingly eloquent post about the recent unfortunate banning of my favourite Scottish poster.

I know the thread has been locked, and I understand therefore that Furball's demise is not therefore considered a matter for public debate, but one point arising from the post does, in my view, deserve some further consideration.

I have noted a trend for any post that is negative on the subject of Mr Tendulkar to result in warnings/infractions, and worryingly that seems to be reaching a stage where legitimate comment and criticism or humour are being stifled.

On the other hand some players, notably Stuart Broad and Ian Bell, get regularly pilloried, and some very personal remarks made about them, with it seems there being no issues raised.

Surely this should be consistent? If someone questioned Sachin's gender, however deeply their tongue was planted in their cheek, I'm pretty sure there would consequences. Our Stu on the other hand seems to be fair game.

Or is Sachin just a special case? If he is he shouldn't be - any supporter of his who can't utilise 33,000 International runs and 99 centuries, not to mention all his other achievements, to repel any criticism of their hero really shouldn't, due to being so intellectually lacking, be posting on a cricket forum in the first place.

I don't care how many moderators post in here and say it isn't policy. Because it's what's been happening.

I've never been bothered, personally, by posters calling my favourite players by certain names,- in some cases it can be quite funny. What concerns me is that all banter is taken out of the equation just because some people are likely to react more preciously than others.

I have just been reading Corrin's surprisingly eloquent post about the recent unfortunate banning of my favourite Scottish poster.

I know the thread has been locked, and I understand therefore that Furball's demise is not therefore considered a matter for public debate, but one point arising from the post does, in my view, deserve some further consideration.

I have noted a trend for any post that is negative on the subject of Mr Tendulkar to result in warnings/infractions, and worryingly that seems to be reaching a stage where legitimate comment and criticism or humour are being stifled.

On the other hand some players, notably Stuart Broad and Ian Bell, get regularly pilloried, and some very personal remarks made about them, with it seems there being no issues raised.

Surely this should be consistent? If someone questioned Sachin's gender, however deeply their tongue was planted in their cheek, I'm pretty sure there would consequences. Our Stu on the other hand seems to be fair game.

Or is Sachin just a special case? If he is he shouldn't be - any supporter of his who can't utilise 33,000 International runs and 99 centuries, not to mention all his other achievements, to repel any criticism of their hero really shouldn't, due to being so intellectually lacking, be posting on a cricket forum in the first place.

Mocking Tendulkar is probably the easiest way to provoke a section of Indian fans and it is often the motive behind positng negatively about Mr. T. That IMO is the reason why negative posts about Mr. T get special attention.

Surely kids can be taken to the park, play a little cricket with them.

Breed the new generation of English cricketers that hopefully won't kick India's ass as bad as this current crop.

EDIT: Oh you edited your previous post it seems. All I mean to suggest is that these seem like such trivial matters, surely not something to get worked up over on the internet again and again. I mean it seems extremely silly to suggest that mods are biased towards a certain group, especially since the mod team is comprised of members from all parts of the world and really have no incentive to favour one group over another.

While I agree with the general sentiments of Turbinator, it's easier for someone to say that when they're not that active on CW. I'm assuming a lot of these guys access CW at work or something and it does take up a large part of their day, so it is somewhat significant to them. Got nothing to do with what's being discussed really.

What I think should be the case is that everyone knows the rules pretty clearly, and if you're going to try and stretch the rules and work ways around it, or even do it subtly then expect to pay the consequences. If someone else does the same and they don't get punished, then they probably just got lucky or overlooked, but that doesn't excuse your own actions does it?

I'm verryyy sleepy so I hope it somewhat made sense, if not I'll edit/elaborate tomorrow, if this isn't locked by then.

As has been mentioned already, it's a case of reading the context. It's natural for people who the bait isn't dangled for to often completely fail to see it for what it is, and so assume that there's double standards at play.

Originally Posted by Athlai

If GI 'Best Poster On The Forum'Joe says it then it must be true.

Athlai doesn't lie. And he doesn't do sarcasm either, so you know it's true!

'You will look very silly said Mr Salteena with a dry laugh.Well so will you said Ethel in a snappy tone and she ran out of the room with a very superier run throwing out her legs behind and her arms swinging in rithum.Well said the owner of the house she has a most idiotick run.'

As has been mentioned already, it's a case of reading the context. It's natural for people who the bait isn't dangled for to often completely fail to see it for what it is, and so assume that there's double standards at play.

Yeha which is all well and good but the point you seem to be missing is that the bait is constantly dangled just as much for England/Australia/etc players as it is for precious Sachin.

The difference is in the reactions. I was warned for calling the India bowlers 'clowns'. Do you think that would happen if there weren't a bunch of posters likely to overreact (even though it was a 100% accurate statement)? England have been **** for a lot of the time I've posted here and nobody has ever been told off by the mods for saying it.

Yeha which is all well and good but the point you seem to be missing is that the bait is constantly dangled just as much for England/Australia/etc players as it is for precious Sachin.

I don't think so. I might be missing it for reasons I have stated, but considering the recent reactions of neutral posters that aren't prejudiced against either team, I'm inclined to believe that it's not an equal give and take like what you make it to be.

The difference is in the reactions. I was warned for calling the India bowlers 'clowns'. Do you think that would happen if there weren't a bunch of posters likely to overreact (even though it was a 100% accurate statement)? England have been **** for a lot of the time I've posted here and nobody has ever been told off by the mods for saying it.

I agree that the example you provide should not be grounds for infarction, but I wouldn't for one second pretend that that's representative of the instances that have led to a couple of recent bannings. Those were clearly a build up of posts deliberately designed with intention to provoke.

The things people call Gambhir, Sreesanth and Harbhajan sometimes are way worse than Broad.

Also have seen Sachin called a lot of things too, it is all a matter of what context it is used in and how repetitive aka Shivfan and the West Indies/India series it is(which was a valid opinion for the first few times before it became irritating and just trolling).